Ukraine flag Armor Games stands with Ukraine Ukraine flag
If you’d like to help, please consider giving to Ukraine Crisis Fund

ForumsWEPRCannibalism

146 48515
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-cannibalism-be-illegal

55 say Yes cannibalism should be illegal
45 say No cannibalism should not be illegal

Please. Someone give me reason to believe in humanity again.

  • 146 Replies
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

Υou are being a hypocrite because of your previous attempt to bring the thread back on topic. You asked the questions, we all replied to keep up with the discussion and instead of promoting it, you targeted and attacked one user in particular, without replying to any of us, without continuing the discussion, just expressing your view in one sentence and ignoring my question afterwards (and thus my attempt to continue the conversation).

Therefore, I have been led to assume that you are taking advantage of the situation to attack Fish, instead of actually wanting any serious discussion to occur.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,920 posts
Grand Duke

Here's something to lighten the mood, humans can be cooked and eaten safely. Even cannibals should adhere to basic hygiene standards.

Anyway, regarding the act of cannibalism itself, it should be stressed that there are no laws that constrain it if it's consensual. Personally I'm nauseated by it, but it's not for the general public to make the law.

This doesn't mean that all acts which are consensual should be legalised though.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,983 posts
Scribe

Υou are being a hypocrite because of your previous attempt to bring the thread back on topic.

No I'm not. According to Dictionary.com this is the definition of hypocrisy:
"a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."
Now explain to me how asking some questions to better understand the participants in this thread........................... and then days later picking up on a viewpoint and questioning it is even remotely related to the definition of hypocrisy?

I have been led to assume that you are taking advantage of the situation

1) I haven't been leading you anywhere, and you don't strike me as the type to be led to believing anything without questioning it first.
2) What situation? Isn't it norm to try to point out flaws in another's post? If he feels that I was to personal in my responses, he would have said that I was being ad hominem in my post.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

No I'm not. According to Dictionary.com this is the definition of hypocrisy:

That's equivocation but I am going to refrain from responding to this anymore. I still haven't lost faith in the topic. Let's stop attacking each other and focus on the discussion at hand.

This doesn't mean that all acts which are consensual should be legalised though.

Well, I assume the reason for this is that some consensual acts may harm directly or indirectly other people as well. Like murdering and eating someone could emotionally damage his family, even if he said 'yes' to it.

Personally I'm nauseated by it, but it's not for the general public to make the law.

Me too, but that's a good thing most of the times (the public not making the law I mean)

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,920 posts
Grand Duke

Well, I assume the reason for this is that some consensual acts may harm directly or indirectly other people as well. Like murdering and eating someone could emotionally damage his family, even if he said 'yes' to it.

Yes, that is one way of looking at things when making laws. Another would be whether the act in question would lead to any public policy concerns. For example, would it be unreasonable to criminalise the act as this would definitely affect mothers or people who consume after-birth placentas?

I'm going to backpedal a little here. Judges who decide upon cases and hence make case law, do examine and take into account public opinion and contemporary attitudes before passing judgement, however this is just one of the factors they place an emphasis on. So it would probably be more refined and fitting to assert that public opinion does play a part in law making.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

About those assumptions of opinions, how can you say that I've never heard your opinions!?
Because, in all, I've probably stated 5 or fewer anywhere in the forums. Feel free to give an example, though, if you can find one.

Feelings aren't really such a horrible, irrational thing [...]
As ...?

The vast majority of people are not born as racists, cannibals, or pedophiles.
Or philanthropists, or philatelists, or engineers, or politicians, or footbal coaches, or jaywalkers, or foodies, or Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Koreshans, or nerds, or emos, or gangsters, or vagabonds, or cyclists, or pedestrians, or philosophers, or farmers, or entrepeneurs. What's your point?

I don't know how you managed to reason out that cannibalism is OK, [...]
Well, if you haven't picked up the general idea by now, you aren't likely to. Still, perhaps this will help:
If we consider all of the incidents in AngelofWar's timeline, would any of the atrocities be morally acceptible if the victim were one of these, these, or these? If not, cannibalism is not what makes them atrocious. If you think they would be acceptible, you will, in fact, be a hypocrite and I will have to question the validity of your notion of right and wrong.

Υou are being a hypocrite because of your previous attempt to bring the thread back on topic. You asked the questions, we all replied to keep up with the discussion and instead of promoting it, you targeted and attacked one user in particular, without replying to any of us, without continuing the discussion, just expressing your view in one sentence and ignoring my question afterwards (and thus my attempt to continue the conversation).
Actually, he is correct in that hypocrites are people who actually claim to be better than they are. This is more like the pot calling the kettle black, or the ram calling the shepherd hairy.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

For example, would it be unreasonable to criminalise the act as this would definitely affect mothers or people who consume after-birth placentas?

I'm not sure if it really fits the definition of cannibalism, other than it being human tissue. Wouldn't that also include drinking human blood, for example? It seems like a grey area.

@FishPreferred Let's not insist on the whole 'defining hypocrisy' or other off-topic side debates.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,920 posts
Grand Duke

I'm not sure if it really fits the definition of cannibalism, other than it being human tissue. Wouldn't that also include drinking human blood, for example? It seems like a grey area.

It really depends on what definition is being used. Is cannibalism the consumption of human tissue, or the consumption of human tissue from an unwilling donor?

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

You're still implying that I am a Christian by saying "different from you" because the word choice makes it assume I am a Christian. But let's ignore that for a moment.
Okay so i remember that I commented on this but it deleted half of my post because editing glitched or something. In the comment though I said something similar to this.
I can give you reasons as to why that's not true from using various sources of Abrahamic religions, say they aren't really Christians, twist things around and skew it to my point, explain that it is symbolic and not literal, and etc. Just for you I will allow you to choose which one you would like me to respond with

i dont care why you can explain it in a different way the same way you dont care those who do it explain it in a different way. the action itself is "bad" (as you said), so eating the flesh and blood of jesus is "bad". you might not be eating the real one but you do mean it.

also, claiming "not real member of my religion" to anyone you disagree with their sets of opinions with is very weak.

You see pedophilia is due to a poor mental state (for lack of better words). Men are naturally protective of women, we evolved that way, but the younger the girl is; the more protective. Men also have very little "cute sensors", a baby crying goes off in a man's mind as "cute" (at least when not stressed out). A human male is naturally protective of children and knows sexual intercourse will severely harm them emotionally and physically and this is why pedophilia is due to a mental illness, humans are not pedohpiles by nature and it has nothing to do with society thus concluding it is an mental illness that should be treated for. I'm not saying lets go kill them, I'm saying they don't deserve to suffer through life because of one trait they may have little control over so 'we' should help them, this is also what I'm saying for cannibalism

you should read foukou (or however you spell that french name).

homosexuality was a mental illness as well, does that mean that it was an illness back then but miraculasly (spelled wrong?) changed and isnt today?

and everything you said about the "male mind" is simply speculation.
you also use the word "nature" so freely but it doesnt really mean anything. what do you mean by natural? the norm? so anything that isnt the norm is bad/sick? if im guessing correctly you use "nature" as a "what should be right" that sounds obviously correct then this is what the argument is about and saying "its not right cause its not natural" is the same as "its not right cause its not right".

Giving examples of where it (can) go right is also invalid then. Look at the time line, it has nothing positive about cannibalism throughout the 'entire' timeline, it is to show you how the bad things out weigh the good things by far.

duh, saying that a man raped a woman but eventually she learned to love him and they are happy today and found a cure to cancer with their joint efforts is not a good argument for rape.

notice how this discussion looks like. you give examples, we use logic that relies on thought. you use specific cases, we use general theories. thats what some of us have been saying all along.

I meant if the culture said it was okay to rape women at will regardless of them being int he same culture, the answer is still clearly; no.

you dont get it. rape CANT happen with consent. thats why the law gave sex without consent a definition. if you want to call canibalism with consent a different name and say thats ok, then the argument works.
obviously though, you disagree with any form of eating a human (even dead), so no.


Seriously? Do we seriously have to go through this? Fine we'll go through it, lol.

I. SNK/ATK hentai in general can be divide into multiple sections of hentai, all (doushinji) hentai of SNK do not involve eating someone, worse being necrophilia and goro. No, you are not getting the link to any of these.
II. Yes, there is also explicit images of Dora the Explorer, go around saying you enjoy it just to get a survey of the responses. No you won't do that because 'you' know the answer and you know it's wrong.

there being groups doesnt make one group bad. and a person wouldnt scream they like explicit pictures of dora the same way a person wouldnt scream they were gay 100 years ago. so still, grow up.

what society think and what is generaly accepted or not, isnt necesairly always right/wrong.

1) Is it OK when both parties consent?
2) Is a culture that regularly practices it acceptable/respect worthy?
3) Would you like to see it become a part of main stream society (human parts and meat being served in restaurants, shops, in baby food, etc...)
4) Do want to try it?
5) Are you often described by others as completely insane?
6) Do you regularly view violence/gore centered pornography?
7) How do you think you'd feel after having devoured a fellow human being's body? 🍖

first ill say this. im religious, im rather strict (logically), and most importantly: theres a difference between "do i think its wrong?" and "do i think it should be illegal?" i ignore my opinions in the latter.

1) is it wrong? i will be disturbed and i think its wrong because it involves death.
should it be illegal? i dont know. wishes can change. this wish doesnt give you a way back. i cant answer this.
2) yes. for both aspects of my thoughts. (under some conditions, like it being a dead body etc.)
3) eww no.
should it be lega? under the same conditions ive mentioned in number 2, yes
4) i think the answer is obvious lol
5) some would say that :3. then again, gays were insane 100 years ago. wiccan people too (after people started to think that maybe black magic isnt real after all)
6) nope. im hemophobic, id throw up :P
7) id throw up

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

sorry, i was away for so long and i have to reply to things in other pages. i thought id just reply to the last one ive been at and the last page but im bored so here i am :3

About those assumptions of opinions, how can you say that I've never heard your opinions!? You practically live in the WEPR forum where you continually voice them.

not everybody voices their opinions. some think objectively and ignore their feelings. look at how i answered your questions for example.

Feelings aren't really such a horrible, irrational thing you know. No one ever told me or explained to me why cannibalism is wrong, its just one of those things that no normal person would think of doing. The vast majority of people are not born as racists, cannibals, or pedophiles. We develop these things from our immediate family or caretakers (or lack thereof).

wrong, feelings are actually that way. of course, life isnt worth it without feelings and they are what make life good. if we believe (and since we are here we do) that there IS right and wrong, feeling are what clouds our judgement. you can never reach a 100% correct conclusion unless you drove all your subjectives feelings aside. they might give a hint (and many times they are correct) but they cant be relied on when the result effects such a large group of people (laws in a country).

they dont have to explain to you those things in order for their feeling to pass to you. i was never explained that eating pigs is wrong, or that turning on the light on kipur day is wrong, and while im very open minded, i still do feel rather guilty/uncomfortable whenever i do turn on the light by mistake or didnt notice i ate meat and then dairies too early (which obviously isnt a wrong thing to do). culture works that way.

The vast majority of people are not born as racists, cannibals, or pedophiles.

what do you mean by saying that? that since the majority arent like that its wrong? does that mean that every minority is bad?

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

and once again, sorry for tripple posting. one last thought:

It really depends on what definition is being used. Is cannibalism the consumption of human tissue, or the consumption of human tissue from an unwilling donor?

i think we all agree (both sides of this argument) that we are reffering to the first no? i also think we all agree that the latter is wrong and should be illegal.

i also forgot that its possible to be a cannibal without killing or even harming the person. ill use your example of blood because i cant think of a more "mellow" example.
is there any argument against drinking a willings persons blood? when you think canibalism you immidiatly think flesh but having your blood drunk wont kill you (im small portions). we give blood all the time, so the problem has nothing to do with the person who the blood is taken from right?

also, any person who ever bled in the mouth is a canibal then XP

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

I will try to break down the threads.

I. Religion and Cannibalism
I am not going to argue about religious beliefs of cannibalism. It's not because religion is for the most part is unfalsifiable and will take months to cover.

This one is for DoomBreed
I really hate to pull this card, it makes me feel like an ares but I'm going through with it. Do you have experience in occultism? Do you conduct research projects on occultism? Have you read books on occultism? I do and have. So who is better suited to speak of occultism (and it's groups), myself or you?

II. My Inconsistency
My side and perspective has clearly changed multiple times throughout the topic. Please don't confuse my older posts with my newer ones because they've changed. If I did say something incorrect I have admitted to it.

III. Is cannibalism legal or not legal?
Cannibalism is illegal (in modern societies) because consuming human corpses and/or severed limbs is illegal because it is considered medical waste and medical waste is illegal to consume.

Currently Pakistan's congress (correct me if I'm wrong) is passing a bill to make cannibalism illegal which may be the first nation to make cannibalism itself illegal, however I have read something about Britain already having a law against it (again correct me if I'm wrong).

IV. Should Cannibalism be Legal?
The leading reason for legalizing cannibalism is due to cultural beliefs (which are not necessarily religious beliefs) and some people would feel bad for hindering another persons culture.

In the first link provided from Debate.org you will notice that the defenders of cannibalism defend it as a "sexual right" (lack of better term) which should not be infringed on if both parties consent.

V. What does the Medical World Say?
I have provided various links from medical sites that say it has a negative affect (some disproved). Some have argued though it 'may' not have any effect.

VI. Events of Cannibalism
Seriously, just give me several sources or names of events that is positive about cannibalism. I have given you sources and links, dozens if not more. Why don't I deserve the same response? You can't just keep questioning something over and over and have the same source provided over and over and not prove the source incorrect and just keep questioning the source. Go ahead question it all you want, it's not incorrect until you've proven it's incorrect (specifically talking about the wiki), why don’t I turn the tables and put down some questions?
Have you proven wikipedia to not hold a large portion of recorded cannibalism?
Have you proven that these events are benevolent?
Can you medically prove that these acts were psychologically sane and healthy in nature?


VII. Define Cannibalism
We seem to not have a universal definition on this topic, let’s fix that. Cannibalism is the consumption of flesh of the same species. What is flesh? Flesh is the soft part of your body (secondary definition but let's go with that since it’s what most of us mean anyways).
“you dont get it. rape CANT happen with consent. thats why the law gave sex without consent a definition. if you want to call canibalism with consent a different name and say thats ok, then the argument works.”
obviously though, you disagree with any form of eating a human (even dead), so no..”
You don’t get it. YOU CAN CONSENT TO A MALE RAPING A FEMALE, and NOT HAVE THE FEMALE’S CONSENT, the same way you CAN CONSENT TO MURDER. It’s NOT SUPPOSE to be FAIR because it isn’t fair at it’s core. Also I have ALREADY called it a PARAPHILIA https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias or more SPECIFICALLY VOREPHILIA http://www.yourdictionary.com/vorarephilia, which IS AN ICD.
I’m not angry with you or anything, really I’m not, I’m just trying to get a point across and you brought a lot of them up.

“there being groups doesnt make one group bad.”

That ‘would’ be true if there were ‘many’ groups. There is only a select few (from what I can tell only 2 or 3 tribes primarily) that execute this act.
Prove that these groups are respect worthy. Native Americans have moved on, African Tribes (a lot of them anyways) have moved on. Yes they are human and deserve the respect of a human but is their culture okay? Let’s look at it this way.
It’s okay to put down Nazis. No one really cares, let’s be honest, it’s the truth. I don’t care if you make fun of a Nazi and honestly really no one does. Just because someone is a Nazi does that mean we should beat them up as soon as we find out? No. Should we help them? Yes.

also, claiming "not real member of my religion" to anyone you disagree with their sets of opinions with is very weak.

Aha, so the truth comes out, I have never stated that I am a Christian, you marked me as one, “my religion”, how would you know it’s my religion if I never said it was.

FishPreffered and Batman picture post.

“Sorry, what culture is that and why do you think I would defend it?”
Yep, that sums it up. All you’ve done is question after question. Literally all you’ve done is discuss and throw out questions, the reason why it’s difficult to tackle your statements is because you barely have any and they aren’t consistent. What culture? The culture some pages back.

Attempt to prove they are social constructs with biology, sociology, and evolution. You will find that you are wrong. You will also find that social constructs at their core are rooted in our animal instincts which contradicts the term social construct.

“...ICD claim until you started this charade of ad nauseam”
No because it still stands and was not defeated.

Fun Fact
Did you know you in the AG forums you can right click a misspelled word and a menu (or whatever it's called) and it will show up and give you a list of words you can replace it with.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

Do you have experience in occultism? Do you conduct research projects on occultism? Have you read books on occultism?
Does he need to? Your claims about the historical causality of pagan ostracism are blatantly false and completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

I do and have. So who is better suited to speak of occultism (and it's groups), myself or you?
Great. Why not share this knowledge by making an occultism thread?

My side and perspective has clearly changed multiple times throughout the topic. Please don't confuse my older posts with my newer ones because they've changed. If I did say something incorrect I have admitted to it.
That in itself is fine. Accusing others of whipping a dead horse before they are aware that you've dropped that argument is not. Asserting that you never made the claims that you withdrew after admitting they were false is not.

Cannibalism is illegal (in modern societies) because consuming human corpses and/or severed limbs is illegal because it is considered medical waste [...]
If someone needs surgery to remove a large piece of nacho chip stuck in their trachea, that piece of nacho is medical waste as soon as it's removed. Therefore, eating nacho chips is illegal, right?

Currently Pakistan's congress (correct me if I'm wrong) is passing a bill to make cannibalism illegal which may be the first nation to make cannibalism itself illegal, however I have read something about Britain already having a law against it (again correct me if I'm wrong).
So, Pakistan is (or will soon be) a modern society, but U.S., Canada, Germany, Swizerland, Poland, Belgium, Spain, France, Russia, China, Japan, and Australia aren't?

The leading reason for legalizing cannibalism is due to cultural beliefs (which are not necessarily religious beliefs) and some people would feel bad for hindering another persons culture.
No, it isn't. The whole point is that we should not impinge upon the freedoms of others in order to satisfy our emotional biases toward their choice of action. Doing so would be a violation of their human rights.

In the first link provided from Debate.org you will notice that the defenders of cannibalism defend it as a "sexual right" (lack of better term) which should not be infringed on if both parties consent.
Because people commenting on an unofficial online poll accurately represent the entirety of human society, right? Strange how their opinions need to be conveniently paraphrased for use in this discussion. It's almost as though they wouldn't support your claim at all if not distorted by your own personal interpretation.

Seriously, just give me several sources or names of events that is positive about cannibalism. I have given you sources and links, dozens if not more. Why don't I deserve the same response?
Because you're demanding that we prove something that was never even suggested. You're creating a false dichotomy here by treating a neutral thing as an assortment of good and evil parts. If you try doing the same with any of my counterexamples, you will find that it is impossible to have the &quotositive events" associated with any of those things outweigh the negative, yet liquor, bureaucracy, homosexuality, organized religion, sporting events, stoneflies, and erosion are not illegal or immoral, at least in the eyes of the majority.

Go ahead question it all you want, it's not incorrect until you've proven it's incorrect (specifically talking about the wiki), [...]
It isn't about it being incorrect. It's about it having no relevance to whether or not cannibalism is acceptible.

Have you proven wikipedia to not hold a large portion of recorded cannibalism?
Have you proven that these events are benevolent?
Can you medically prove that these acts were psychologically sane and healthy in nature?
In response to all of them: Can you prove that any one of those questions has any bearing upon the discussion, and/or that answering them will in any way resolve any dispute, disagreement, or misunderstanding at all related to it?

Also I have ALREADY called it a PARAPHILIA https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias or more SPECIFICALLY VOREPHILIA http://www.yourdictionary.com/vorarephilia,[...]
And you admitted (albeit belatedly) that you were wrong in calling it that.

[...] which IS AN ICD.
No. Vorarephilia [bombast]IS NOT AN ICD[/bombast].

That ‘would’ be true if there were ‘many’ groups. There is only a select few (from what I can tell only 2 or 3 tribes primarily) that execute this act.
So, popularity is what makes the difference between moral and immoral? You know, those Tibetan monks don't really have much social life, either. Obviously their devotion to meditation and pacifism is not as good as they claim.

Prove that these groups are respect worthy.
What does respect have to do with morality? If we don't respect garbage-truck drivers, does this make them immoral, uncivilized, defective, or undeserving of human rights?

It’s okay to put down Nazis. No one really cares, let’s be honest, it’s the truth. I don’t care if you make fun of a Nazi and honestly really no one does.
I'm fairly certain a lot of people care. Particularly German people who are tired of being associated with that regime in the minds of others and vilified because of something they either had no involvement in, had no control over, and/or had no awareness of.

Should we help them? Yes.
Why? How? What does it matter if someone endorses a dead facist regime?

Yep, that sums it up. All you’ve done is question after question. Literally all you’ve done is discuss and throw out questions, the reason why it’s difficult to tackle your statements is because you barely have any and they aren’t consistent.
Because most of your arguments have no recognizeable connection to each other, or even to the topic. I've explained how they fail to support your argument in any way. I've noted their many logical fallacies and even linked to articles about them. If you want more from me, you're going to need to provide some concrete justification for your stance; preferably without diverting the discussion into unrelated tangents, reasserting points that have already been invalidated, or devolving into baseless speculation.

What culture? The culture some pages back.
That can't be right. I'm sure I would remember if I voiced any support for any culture in existence for the first time ever.

Attempt to prove they are social constructs with biology, sociology, and evolution.
I don't need to. You failed to even demonstrate that they might be anything but. Not that it matters, anyway.

You will also find that social constructs at their core are rooted in our animal instincts which contradicts the term social construct.
The instinctive formation of social groups (hence "social&quot, which gives rise to artificial modes of thought (hence "construct&quot, does not in any way conflict with the meaning of the term.

“...ICD claim until you started this charade of ad nauseam”
No because it still stands and was not defeated.
Seeing as you cannot logically be referring to the ICD claim you've already withdrawn, and as everyone can see that your admission was after the fact, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've realized your mistake.

Did you know you in the AG forums you can right click a misspelled word and a menu (or whatever it's called) and it will show up and give you a list of words you can replace it with.
That's probably a browser-specific feature.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

@FishPreferred

I'm trying to explain how there are occultist groups that act out cannibalism and compared to all others; they are not of sound mind. The Church of Satan and ONA comparison was more of a joke, there isn't anything wrong with the Church of Satan and you can even visit their website if you wanted to learn more. You couldn't tell me the first thing about the Church of Satan or ONA, how could you determine determine anything about them.

Parahilia involves vorephilia; Vorephilia is a branch of paraphilia.

No, no one cares of you hate Nazis, Germans in particular (Ethnic and living in Germany) find the term Nazi highly offensive and detached themselves from that piece of history whilst at the same time taking responsibility for it. If you're using Nazi as an insult that is one thing, if you're insulting a Nazi that is another. Also if someone affiliates Germans with Nazis by default then they need some proper education.

Think of a social construct, I promise you that it can be found in nature.
-Coming of Age rituals; Found in animal kingdom
-Trying to look attractive via voice(singing), appearance, and etc; found in animal kingdom.
-Attention Seeking; found in animal kingdom.
-Keeping money in the bank (surplus stash); find in animal kingdom.
-Males defending females; found in animal kingdom
-Depression; found in animal kingdom.
-Social Dancing; found in animal kingdom.
-Cleanliness; found in animal kingdom.
-Educating Youth; found in animal kingdom.
-Killing different groups within the same species; found in animal kingdom.

What culture? The culture I brought up, remember about I pointed out that tribe that ate dead bodies that didn't even belong to their group?

The scale is an important piece because it outlines the fact that cannibalism has no positive effect on society but has had negative ones.

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Also cannibalism is illegal in modern countries indirectly because of medical waste laws.

Also I apologize for my grammar, haha. I would go back and edit but editing cuts off half my comment/reply for some reason.

Showing 106-120 of 146

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More